NSW Legislation, Prevention Of Cruelty to Animals, Timelines and Requirements

[asal]

Tuesday, 11 February 2025

Reminder to Members that the NSW Legislation, Prevention Of Cruelty to Animals, Timelines and Requirements are as follows

What is changing? On 21 November 2024, changes were made to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979, and the Companion Animals Act 1998 to strengthen puppy and dog welfare by establishing minimum standards for dog breeders. • These changes are coming in stages and will apply to all breeders across NSW. They will improve the identification and accountability of dog breeding activities by mandating compliance with minimum standards to strengthen animal welfare. • Breeders that had more than 20 female adult dogs immediately before 21 November 2024 will not be subject to the maximum cap until 1 December 2025. However, they are not allowed to acquire additional female adult dogs above the number that was on the dog premises immediately before 21 November 2024. Figure 1 (below): Timeline of key changes to rules for dog breeding in NSW

These changes will affect the following: Lifetime breeding cap for dog litter limits and record keeping A mandatory lifetime litter cap, setting out the maximum number of pregnancies and and types of births will apply to all adult female dogs. Breeders will also be required to keep records of all births. Minimum number of staff for dog breeding premises Mandatory staffing ratios for dog breeding premises are being brought in to ensure proper and sufficient care for dogs. Sale or transfer of dogs Requirements to provide identification numbers for the sale or transfer of dogs will be changing. Animal Welfare Code of Practice – Breeding Dogs and Cats It will become mandatory for all dog breeders to comply with the Animal Welfare Code of Practice – Breeding Dogs and Cats (Breeding Code) to ensure improved animal welfare outcomes for dogs in NSW.  Maximum number of female adult dogs A new limit has been set following extensive stakeholder consultation to address key risks and animal health welfare concerns associated with breeding practices. Mandatory breeder identification New mandatory breeder identification provisions will apply to anyone breeding dogs, whether regular breeders, occasional breeders or those with accidental litters. This enhances transparency of dog breeding activities across NSW and assists people in acquiring a puppy to know that they are buying from a reputable breeder. For further information on these changes please click on the link below to read the NSW Government document.

[asal]

wonder if these dick head politicians will ever wake up its been law for what? over 30 years that ALL PUPPIES AND KITTENS be microchipped before going to their new homes and yet!!

 

90 percent of impounded puppies and kittens are NOT MICROCHIPPED?

 

SO APPART from pissing off every registered breeder stupid enough to not only obey the law, they want to insult them even more???

 

wonder how long before there is no one left but those who never chip, never register and  most of them dont even vaccinate

 

wankers

 

they draw up their legislation without even talking to the people they so busy assuming are potential abusers.

 

the 90 percent  rest breeding the millions never chipped are so under the radar none of their legislation is obeyed anyway, certainly never has to date!

Edited February 11 by asal

[Tempus Fugit]

Even if they are microchipped, pounds don't seem to check pedigree databases to get in touch with breeders for possibility of take back. Last year I adopted a gsd from the local pound and managed to contact his breeder via searching his microchip no on a pedigree database. Turned out the dog was LR with Dogs NSW. His breeder was not happy that the dog ended up in the pound as the puppy sale contract stipulated return to breeder if unable to keep.

[tdierikx]

2 hours ago, Tempus Fugit said:

Even if they are microchipped, pounds don't seem to check pedigree databases to get in touch with breeders for possibility of take back.

 

Pounds are only required to check the main chip database for the state they are located in... and if a chip doesn't come up with details, then that's where the search stops. The chip could be from another state or registry, but those aren't checked, mainly because either pounds don't have quick access to other registries, or don't have the staff/time to go and check every possible registry available out there. It's a major flaw in the system IMHO.

 

@asalI'm pretty sure that DogsNSW was included in the consultation leading up to this legislation...

 

T.

[asal]

just on the news one of the microchip registers to supposedly make your pet tracable anywhere in australia,  which the state registers totally fail to do, has gone broke and all pets on the data base will be wiped.  missed the name of which one.

 

WHY?  IS THERE NO GOVENMENT WHOLE OF AUSTRALIA DATA BASE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO DO OBEY THE LAW?

 

CHIP, register and the second their missing dog or cat is shipped interstate, even act to nsw. shows up as no registered owner?

 

busy amending pocta legislation to micro manage all registered breeders into giving up, yet not interested in traceability australia wide of the much loved and LEGAL pets of the people who do obey the law?

 

hypocrisy much

 

 

 

 

[asal]

well its not just pets going missing

our glorious goberment, outsourced ankle tracking crims to a private firm, one of many I think, the news said.

 

Anyway this one has gone bust and tracking shut down, so some 16 crims could be anywhere untraceable for the last two weeks.

 

got to love government privatising everything even tracking crims on bail or avo's 

 

seems to be working as well as the microchip registers

Edited February 11 by asal

[JessicaLawrence]

You are right, I agree with you.

On 12/02/2025 at 4:39 AM, asal said:

well its not just pets going missing

our glorious goberment, outsourced ankle tracking crims to a private firm, one of many I think, the news said.

 

Anyway this one has gone bust and tracking shut down, so some 16 crims could be anywhere untraceable for the last two weeks.

 

got to love government privatising everything even tracking crims on bail or avo's 

 

seems to be working as well as the microchip registers

Thanks for the reminder! These changes seem like a big step forward in ensuring better welfare for dogs and more accountability for breeders. The mandatory breeder ID and lifetime litter cap should help prevent unethical breeding. It’ll be interesting to see how these rules impact the industry. Appreciate the info—definitely worth keeping an eye on! If you are looking for a trustworthy academic online essay writing service, I highly recommend DoMyPaper, which is available at domypaper.com They provide high-quality papers with proper citations and formatting. My friend used their service for her thesis and received excellent feedback from her professor. It's definitely worth checking out!

 

Edited 20 hours ago by JessicaLawrence

[asal]

who would have thunk it, Homesafe is owned by rspca?   not making enough money to swell the coffers was it?  

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10160448426440216&set=a.62797270215

[Boronia]

57 minutes ago, asal said:

who would have thunk it, Homesafe is owned by rspca?   not making enough money to swell the coffers was it?  

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10160448426440216&set=a.62797270215

 

according to this site RSPCA Queensland was a part-owner of HomeSafeID until 2020.  

 

https://www.vetpracticemag.com.au/homesafeid-no-longer-home/

 

 and some more microchip info here https://www.scu.edu.au/news/2025/tc-pet-microchip-problems/

[tdierikx]

7 minutes ago, Boronia said:

 and some more microchip info here https://www.scu.edu.au/news/2025/tc-pet-microchip-problems/

 

This article raises an extremely valid point... basically, why, if microchipping is mandatory in nearly every state and territory in Australia, and state governments are tasked with creating and maintaining legislative requirements regarding pets, then why the heck have most state governments been happy to effectively outsource critical components for that legislation to work to third parties?

 

Anyone who has ever had dealings with RSPCA in any state fully understands how frustrating that can be, either when trying to report on animal cruelty, or being a target of investigation into same. Policing of laws should not be handed over to an essentially privately run and unaccountable charity organisation - especially one that has a business model that may have it in direct competition (in a business sense) with those it is tasked to police. Policing of laws MUST be retained as a government owned and operated function.

 

And now we have a privately run microchip database going offline and putting the reclaimability status of potentially thousands (if not tens of thousands) of pets at risk. NSW and South Australia are leading the way with having a central (State) database for tracking microchip details... as it should be at the very least. I do believe that recent legislation in WA may have the creation of a state-wide database happening also... but don't quote me on that... I'm sure that it was mentioned in the legislation that was passed by their state government. Of course, none of the state run or private databases actually "talk" to each other, so if an animal is found wandering and scanned, if the animal's chip is not in the preferred database of that region, then it's details will not come up... and pounds/vets/etc are not inclined to go check every single possible database for those details, as they may need to seek authorisation/permission to access those databases, and the process just gets too convoluted and time consuming.

 

I'm all for a National database system where anyone that scans a chip can access a single site, enter the chip number, and the system will check ALL available databases for any details for that chip number. This would NOT be a hard task to achieve if created and maintained by a National/Federal entity, who can get the required access authority for searching each database, and incorporate the search to return the details for ANY chip implanted/registered in Australia. Seriously, it's NOT rocket science...

 

T.

[asal]

2 hours ago, tdierikx said:

 

This article raises an extremely valid point... basically, why, if microchipping is mandatory in nearly every state and territory in Australia, and state governments are tasked with creating and maintaining legislative requirements regarding pets, then why the heck have most state governments been happy to effectively outsource critical components for that legislation to work to third parties?

 

Anyone who has ever had dealings with RSPCA in any state fully understands how frustrating that can be, either when trying to report on animal cruelty, or being a target of investigation into same. Policing of laws should not be handed over to an essentially privately run and unaccountable charity organisation - especially one that has a business model that may have it in direct competition (in a business sense) with those it is tasked to police. Policing of laws MUST be retained as a government owned and operated function.

 

And now we have a privately run microchip database going offline and putting the reclaimability status of potentially thousands (if not tens of thousands) of pets at risk. NSW and South Australia are leading the way with having a central (State) database for tracking microchip details... as it should be at the very least. I do believe that recent legislation in WA may have the creation of a state-wide database happening also... but don't quote me on that... I'm sure that it was mentioned in the legislation that was passed by their state government. Of course, none of the state run or private databases actually "talk" to each other, so if an animal is found wandering and scanned, if the animal's chip is not in the preferred database of that region, then it's details will not come up... and pounds/vets/etc are not inclined to go check every single possible database for those details, as they may need to seek authorisation/permission to access those databases, and the process just gets too convoluted and time consuming.

 

I'm all for a National database system where anyone that scans a chip can access a single site, enter the chip number, and the system will check ALL available databases for any details for that chip number. This would NOT be a hard task to achieve if created and maintained by a National/Federal entity, who can get the required access authority for searching each database, and incorporate the search to return the details for ANY chip implanted/registered in Australia. Seriously, it's NOT rocket science...

 

T.

 

 

should have been a fact from day one, this is ONE NATION, one continent....   no excuses for this utter mess

Edited February 14 by asal